Talk:Recyclopedia

Given that there is persistent censorship of socially responsible and green concepts at Wikipedia, and it seems to be getting worse not better, at least according to Abe Sokolov, perhaps it is time to designate Recyclopedia as our source for general concept articles? They will not be censoring critical concepts because they don't get 1000 google hits when a fascist goes to look, at least.

And, they could use the traffic. At the very least we should recommend it, not Wikipedia, on the front page

Actually, they can't use the traffic, given that their bandwidth seems to have been exceeded for several weeks now.

Is the Recyclopedia content mirrored anywhere? Could someone ask them for MySQL dumps?

Not to my knowledge. All I know that the Sysop, Bureaucrat of Recyclopedia is called Bobo and he may be contacted on w:Talk:Recyclopedia or Wikinfo. If someone could get a hold of him, we'd be glad to have a copy of Recyclopedia materials --Juxo 18:10, 25 Apr 2004 (EEST)

"Formed as a reaction to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is controlled by an elite of SysOps and their cronies who heavily moderate the kind of things that Recyclopedia is interested in. Recyclopedia is being much more careful to avoid this systematic bias.

The creator of this project, bobo (at) enzyme dot org dot nz, whilst having started this project has been busy with other activities and it seems to have taken a life of its own, particularly due to several individuals in particular who are driving it in their own direction."

Ahhh. We have an email address to ask for mysqldumps... But who'd want to set it up again is a different question. And with fresh MediaWiki, not some crap GetWiki that violates GPL in many people's view.

GetWiki doesn't violate GPL any worse than Wikipedia violates GFDL. And, the GetWiki facility to fix damaged articles was and is excellent, and was and is the best thing for the GFDL Corpus in general. There is no chance that MediaWiki, controlled by Wikimedia, will make it easier to fix up articles damaged by their cabal. Their XML import facility is inferior to the GetWiki "leech" facility. So if anything a GPL version of that facility is required.

And, why would someone bring up Recyclopedia again just to see it hacked off the net illegally by people who consider themselves above the law, again? This is even EASIER for them to do if MediaWiki is the wiki code in use, since they are experts at MediaWiki bots, since they use them all the time, and control both sides of the equation (the wiki code and the bot code).

Here's a bet worth taking: take any dozen non-policy articles from Recyclopedia, and have actual academics working on the state of the art in the field compare them to their English Wikipedia equivalents if any. Do you think the Wikipedia version, or the Recyclopedia version, would be more representative of actual current state of the field, in the opinion of people who have nothing to do with Wikimedia, and don't know which is "official"?

Trolls bet that the Recyclopedia scores at least 9/12, and that the Wikipedia versions will be known to contain several obvious fatal errors and omissions that make them unsuitable for distribution to ordinary people, as they are misleading.

It's not a violation to require a password. It's a violation to require a password AND not provide a .ZIP file of all the GFDL material that was contributed at that URL. If any of that is extended, it must be released under GFDL as well, in the same .ZIP. Per-file release would be technically required under the GFDL too, but, let's face it, Wikipedia doesn't do that either to all IP addresses, so with their bad example Recyclopedia will likely cheat too.

Apparently there is actually no operative web service there now. However, you can't trust anything written about Recyclopedia by Wikimedia people. If you look at the page history you see all the usual suspects:

There are so many liars on that list who were involved directly in the attacks that it's fairly obvious why the article exists: to justify denial of service attack with irrelevant arguments and claims about who was involved. As if that justifies anything. Notice User:Atag makes a showing again, and "added description of project leadership" which are the standard names of standard people they hate and blame everything on. Notice also the "removed quote about sysops"! Obvious why they'd remove that. This is more evidence that this "Atag" was the one doing the attacks (release his IP number, please, s/he deserves no more protection than trolls claim when they comment here).

If Recyclopedia was actually anarchist, wouldn't it have NO "leadership"? Someone is lying about being an anarchist!

We knew that when "Bobo" claimed that how to start an anarchist group was not what the site was for! All that stuff he complained about what actually all important links from that one page, which was about real anarchism and real cooperation among real revolutionaries. This is probably what scared him, and made him bow in to the sysop power structure that attacked him with its vandalbot and propaganda.